What's the difference between a Coral Glow and a Banana?

[Pythonfriend]

Pythonfriend, I think you're getting a bit buried in semantics and missing the main idea, especially when there's no properly constrained definition of "morph."

not semantics, its all about ontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

and when you look at the pointless quarrels in the first two pages of this thread, and since it is all about identifying if banana or coral glow are two seperate entities or just one, this is right on the money. i am sorting out all the crap that came up during the first two pages of the thread by introducing the philosophical analysis that is required to properly sort it out.


and my conclusion is simple: banana and coral glow are the same unless proven otherwise. and when really big and experienced breeders say they see no difference, this is not an appeal to authority, it merely shows that banana and coral glow being seperate morphs is unlikely.

for example there was:

Originally Posted by MarkS

The originators of those morphs are Kevin for the coral glows and Will Slough for the banana, Kevin had hatched quite a few. I think Brock has both lines and has also hatched quite a few so is in a position to make comparisons between a lot of different babies from both lines.

Can you still provide evidence that states they aren't besides asserting we should believe a big name cause they say so?

Originally Posted by wienkeg

virtually impossible to disprove a negative

So, no one can prove they aren't. We should just take someone's word for it.

Got it.

i just had to step in with some philosophy. when people demand someone proves something that is FUNDAMENTALLY UNPROVABLE, how can you sort it out without going a bit deeper into philosophy? i am a science nerd, and also quite a nerd about the history of science and natural philosophy. on the side, i also showed why the most rational position to take when it comes to religion is that god does not exist, unless you are convinced that there is evidence that god does exist.

for me, on the specific issue, the thread is pointless anyway: banana and coral glow are identical until PROVEN otherwise. that they are identical CANNOT be proven. (well, with genetic sequencing actually its now possible, but to do that beyond reasonable doubt would require us to sequence the genome of quite a lot of ball pythons). but that they ever turn out to be dissimilar is extremely unlikely. i delivered the tools that are required to understand why that is the case. but the tools i delivered have other uses as well, you can apply them to questions like: did aliens visit earth? does god exist? does homeopathy work? should i or should i not vaccinate my children against diseases that could kill them? is Uri Geller for real? what really happened on 9/11? is global warming / climate change for real?

what i did is nothing more or less than a decent reality check. if you want to argue, and we all like that, better be properly prepared.

basically, tools for correct thought, that were missing in this thread and were necessary to settle the issue on hand.